Quote:
Originally Posted by Suresh Stephen last year I went for a drive from Pathankot to Pangi valley and then to Manali on a Himalayan... an extremely comfortable bike... I drive a Royal enfield bullet otherwise. There is no comparison between the bikes especially in the suspension front. If somebody is used to standing and driving, It will naturally give more stabilty to the bike since the CG shifts downwards when the driver is standing |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trojan I am a Himalayan owner and have a similar dilemma - what is the need to stand up and ride? I think and believe this is more to do with watching countless videos showing blokes riding standing-up and this has kind of metamorphosed into making everyone believe that this is the right way and the only way to ride off-road or rough patches. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArizonaJim I note you seem to basing all of your criticism of the suspension based on observations only.
With the exception of your comments, everything I have read that was written by people who have personally ridden the H over very rough areas have praised the handling and the Himalayan's ability to dampen out or totally remove any road shock from the terrain. |
Well, that last line is really astonishing: “...totally remove any road shock from the terrain”(???!!!). Wow, a truly miraculous bike then! Jim, I invite you to the Himalayas. Chill out awhile, try one out, then come back and tell me – after ten minutes or ten hours - what your spine tells you; I’m quite sure that the word “totally” will take on a totally new meaning! Suresh, the thing is they were standing on long, flat (albeit bumpy) plains where “stability” wasn’t an issue at all. True that I didn’t ask them why, true that some may just think it’s the cool “MX” way to ride, true that I jumped to a conclusion on the basis of my own experience in the H’s saddle. My apologies.
I confess to writing in more haste and less thought than I usually try to do - something was telling me I’d ruffle some feathers, so thanks guys, valid observations/experiences, however, two points: First the bases for assessment/comparison, and then probable reasons the Himalayan is the way it is:
1) Respectfully, for the Himalayan riders who've actually been to Ladakh/Spiti/wherever it's rough and thought they were great: They may be better than many other bikes, better than Pulsars / Dukes / Dominars / CT100’s and whatever else people take out there (incl. R15’s and RC200’s)- but put it up against any international-market dual-sport or true adv. tourer (DR, KLR, XL/XR, GS, Funduro, XT, NX, etc, etc) it is truly, honestly worlds behind - especially in the "behind". I mean, with any of the above you can pretty much ride up and down curbs, and over large speedbreakers and through potholes (I've done it so many times), and literally hardly even feel it - certainly nothing jarring about it. This is simply not true of the H. Front suspension indeed seems okay, rear is just not up to it (comparatively)
at all, unless you're fully laden with pillion, or are a heavier rider.
The trouble for many commentators is that there have been very few dirt-track friendly bikes available in the subcontinent with which to compare it. How many have had the chance to ride a BMW K650 or Africa twin here? They were/are just so rare in India. All other comparisons are essentially, by necessity, going to be against strongly street-oriented bikes, because that’s about all that’s ever been available here. Including old-school Bullets with their rock-hard shockers (though later ones are much improved, and with the springer seats about as comfy on any terrain as the common-man is going to find). Moving on to Jim's objection/question:
Yes, have ridden (I think) three of these H's. For how long? Long enough to lose interest in what I’d really hoped would be a great bike for me to own. Ridden on same terrain, compared with my Impulse and a std. Bullet 500. Lahaul most notably, on gravel/broken pavement mainly, en route to Ladakh. Vs. my 150cc the power was really great, but the suspension was simply not. And (not on the worst of roads, but broken enough) both myself and another, younger rider, with whom I switched off, came away from it thinking the Bullet 500 was more satisfying in most ways; and we were both assessing with intent to purchase (part of the reason I bought my Machismo vs. a first-gen H. I could’ve bought second-hand for not much more). Indeed, besides my "seat of the pants" observations, I did observe others' pant-seats on the rough sections, and observed that H. owners' asses were bouncing consistently higher off the seats (give or take an inch) than those of modern Bullets (whereas on the Impulse I was hardly bouncing at all). Thus highly scientific analyses here, I assure you ;-)
*******
2) I think what we have to remember here is that bike design is almost always driven by marketing – it has to be. The Impulse flopped partly due to its being underpowered for the hills, partly due to its looking "odd" (to traditionalists unfamiliar with the dual-sport genre), partly due to its propensity to throw water/mud all over commuter's pant-legs, also due to the high seat height, the lack of center-stand, etc. Confusion re: target market, or ignoring its preferences, is suicide.
So RE observed and learned and planned brilliantly, and the H. came with decent power, hybrid-classic looks, a center stand, and low front mudguard. RE was unapologetically obsessed with (1) keeping the saddle height low for the sake of shorter-legged riders (read: buyers), very important in this context; But then (2) the GC should also be ample - But then (3) they've got a rather tall engine with a weighty crank and long-ish stroke, which they couldn't get around in trying to appease torque-addicted traditionalists. But these three are at odds, so large compromises would have to be made.
The way I see it, GC as advertised is measured at rest unladen, helpful for marketing purposes, so the H. spec looks good. But throw a leg over it and it squats way down, so just about any rider can plant their soles comfortingly on the ground – effective seat height very low then - though now
actual GC, underway with rider's weight factored in, is likely within an inch of a laden Bullet’s (pipe's still down under, mind you).
But if buyers are actually going to adv-tour with it, they DO need as much GC as possible, so maybe what RE had to do is make the rear spring less truly "progressive" than it is a "step" - squats low for foot-planting, but then things firm up pretty abruptly so that the relatively heavy machine (oh yeah, #4 – it’s gotta be kinda heavy so people will feel its “quality” and “stability” and “road presence” - that was effectively acknowledged in the early RE promo video)... Eh, so that
heavy machine won't deflect the suspension much / take belly impacts under downward inertia on rough patches. You actually can’t afford to have much suspension travel with these constraints. Ride comfort? Forget it, the target market was raised on mostly hard-riding bikes and weren’t going to be that discriminating (I’m convinced that colloquially, if something rode “hard” - or was heavy – or both, it seemed “strong” - it was certainly that way 20 years ago when I first landed).
I realize that the compromises here are within what a lot of people can (or have to) live with. For me, being a long-legged 6'2" and 75kg’s, usually solo and light on luggage, it just doesn't make sense. Legs are too bent, GC is too low (I snapped the shifter shaft off on a rock yesterday even on the Impulse, which is much higher off the ground), and yes, rear suspension is just
way too hard.
Perhaps I was too harsh – it needn't be revised for my sake, and a better solution may be impossible within the specified parameters. The compromises are too large IMO… but if the seat were 1-1/2” higher and by that you cut out 20% of the buyers but gain the possibility of a real, working, progressive rear suspension that only 5% would know enough about to appreciate… well, you’ve lost 15% of your net sales. It works like that.
I was riding behind two expert riders going furiously all-out on a terrible, stony dirt road (in Ladakh), one on a Bullet Electra, one on a Himalayan. They were shockingly well-matched in terms of speed and control. At another point I was on my Impulse, racing against my buddy on his Himalayan coming up one of the worst stretches, the backside of Rohtang. His power was clearly superior, but I could carve the turns tighter and go full-on over the rough stuff, where he simply couldn't. Which is to say he bettered me somewhat uphill and I’d have had a fair advantage downhill (even with him being the better rider). But racing is not the point here... Point is my spine wasn’t getting jarred, my butt not bouncing off the seat the way it had been when riding the H. My friend had no option but to stand on the pegs.
There have been other expert reviews where the H's seat comfort was complained about, but anyway, enough said. When these more substantially hit the U.S. and other markets, and people who've been riding better-suspended machines start testing / buying / riding them, I think we're going to see more comments like my own. Nice commuter / urban bike / all-rounder, but far from ideal for the rough tracks. A step in the right direction perhaps, but eliminate just one or two of those four constraints (the tall engine and the weight most naturally), and you can actually be offered a much better performing bike.
Regards,
-Eric